State Opening of Parliament

Baroness Amos: The State Opening of Parliament will be on Tuesday 23 November.

Northern Ireland Tourist Board: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03

Baroness Amos: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	The Northern Ireland Tourist Board's 2002–03 annual report and accounts were deposited in the Libraries of the House today.

European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: At the European Council in Brussels on 17-18 June 2004, EU Heads of Government agreed to include the Charter of Fundamental Rights as Part II of the Constitutional Treaty. This Statement sets out the Government's views on the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
	:TITLE3:Changes to the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, which make it suitable for incorporation into the treaties.
	The EU Charter was agreed at Nice in 2000 as a political declaration, not as treaty law. At the same time, the European Council agreed that, "in accordance with the Cologne conclusions, the question of the Charter's force would be considered later" (Conclusions of the Nice European Council reference 00/1843, deposited in the Library of the House on 11 December 2000). Her Majesty's Government made it clear that we could not agree to incorporation of the charter into the treaties without further legal clarification of its meaning and application. In the White Paper A Constitutional Treaty for the EU (Cm 5934) of September 2003, Her Majesty's Government said we would make a final decision on incorporation of the charter into the Constitutional Treaty only in the light of the overall picture at the IGC.
	The Charter, including its original preamble, and its own special rules of application and interpretation, is now Part II of the Constitutional treaty, and is introduced by Article I-7(l) of the Treaty. Article I-7 deals with fundamental rights generally. Besides introducing the Charter, Article I-7(1) acknowledges the distinction made in the Charter between rights and principles. Human rights and other fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and in the constitutional traditions common to all the member states remain general principles of EU law (see Article I-7(3)) and insofar as the Charter affirms such rights, they will be interpreted in accordance with the ECHR. Article I-7(2) enables the Union to accede to the ECHR in its own right.
	Significant amendments have been made to Articles II-51 and II-52 in Title VII of the Charter (now entitled "General Provisions Governing the Interpretation and Application of the Charter"). The Charter applies to the Union—its institutions, agencies and bodies—and, though only when they are implementing Union law, to the member states. Paragraph (1) of Article II-51 has been further clarified to show that the Charter does not entail any extension of the Union's competences or any extension of the scope of its application for member states. Paragraph (2) of Article II-51 also confirms that the Charter does not have the effect of extending the scope of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union as established in the other parts of the Constitutional Treaty.
	Article II-52 deals with interpretation, and significantly improves the original Charter provisions. It indicates that there are four sources for the content of the Charter's rights, freedoms and principles: provisions of EU law, the ECHR, the constitutional traditions common to the member states and national law. Under Article II-52(2), Charter articles based on existing EU law are to be read subject to the conditions and limits set out in the Constitutional Treaty; that is, they are effectively subordinated to their legal base in other parts of the constitution. Under Article II-52(3), rights in the Charter that correspond to rights in the ECHR have the same meaning and scope as given by the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court. Article I-7(2) on EU accession to the ECHR will help ensure consistency of jurisprudence as between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.
	Under Article II-52(4), those Charter provisions which draw upon the common constitutional traditions of the member states must be interpreted "in harmony" with such traditions.
	Article II-52(6) emphasises the respect to be given to "national laws and practices", as referred to in the Charter provisions.
	Article II-52(5) is aimed at clarifying the distinction the Charter makes between legally enforceable rights on the one hand, and the principles, of an aspirational nature, on the other hand, which are to be found mainly in the Solidarity Title of the Charter. Principles are designed to guide the actions of the Union institutions, and of the member states when implementing Union law. The Union must observe principles by virtue of Article II-51(1) when deciding whether to exercise its competences; but there is no obligation to legislate, and the Charter itself generates no additional powers to do so. Principles apply within the limitations set out in Article II-51(2).
	Finally, a further new horizontal article, Article II-52(7), has been added to the Constitutional Treaty. Article II-52(7) requires the Charter to be interpreted with due regard to the official Explanations, which address the legal bases for each of the Charter's provisions. The Explanations have been updated and strengthened and are the subject of a special declaration by the member states which ensures that they are published with the new treaty. The official Explanations constitute an authoritative guide to the legal meaning of the Charter's provisions and will help ensure that the Charter is not misinterpreted.
	Whether incorporation of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights into the treaties will increase the powers of the European Union.
	Incorporation of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights into the treaties will not increase the powers of the European Union. The Charter of Fundamental Rights must be read as a whole, including the General Provisions Governing the Interpretation and Application of the Charter, as set out in Articles II-51 to 53 of the Charter. Article II-51(2) provides that the Charter does not extend the scope of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks defined by the other parts of the Constitutional Treaty.
	The benefits to the United Kingdom of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights.
	Although fundamental rights, freedoms and principles are guaranteed by the governments of the member states in accordance with national law, there was no statement of rights, etc binding the European Union. The Charter sets out such a statement for the Union. Following incorporation of the Charter, the institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union will be bound to recognise those rights, etc in exercising any of their powers. The Charter should help to ensure that citizens' basic rights and liberties are protected at EU level, as they are in their own countries.
	The effect of Article II-28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights upon the laws governing industrial relations in the United Kingdom.
	In practice, Article II-28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have no effect upon the laws governing industrial relations in the United Kingdom. Article II-28 states that workers and employers enjoy rights of collective bargaining and action "in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices". There is no Union law in this area, nor could there be in future. EU action on pay, the right of association, the right to strike and the right to impose lock-outs is specifically excluded (see Article III-104(6) of the Constitutional Treaty). Charter Article II-52(6) provides that full account should be taken of national laws and practices as specified in the Charter. As with all the Charter provisions, and by virtue of Article: II-52(7), it is important to read Article II-28 alongside the official Explanation, which in this instance points out that, "The modalities and limits for the exercise of collective action, including strike action, come under national laws and practices". The United Kingdom's laws governing industrial relations maintain a balance between workers' rights to pursue legitimate trade disputes and employers' rights to conduct their businesses without undue disruption from illegitimate strike action. Article II-28 will not alter that balance.

Libya: Future Defence Requirements

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: On 19 December 2003, Libya announced that it would dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programmes, and limit its ballistic missiles to a range of less than 300kms. Since then, Libya has been working to put these commitments into effect, and has been pursuing a course of reintegration into the international community. The Government welcome and fully support this process.
	The Government recognise that Libya, following its decision to renounce weapons of mass destruction, has legitimate defence requirements. The United Kingdom has a clear interest in developing an open and co-operative relationship with Libya on defence matters. During his visit to Libya on 25 March, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced the appointment of General Robin Searby as the United Kingdom Defence Co-ordinator for Libya in order to offer Libya a new military relationship with the United Kingdom. As a natural part of progress towards full normalisation of the United Kingdom's relations with Libya, the Government intend to respond to Libyan requests to discuss its legitimate defence requirements in detail.
	The Government welcome news of Libyan and German agreement on a compensation package for the victims of the 1986 La Belle disco bombing as a significant milestone in the process of rebuilding the United Kingdom's and the European Union's relations with Libya. In light of this agreement, the United Kingdom expects to revisit the issue of the EU arms embargo imposed on Libya in 1986 with EU partners over coming months. If the embargo were removed, the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria (which apply to all countries) would be the test against which any proposed export of defence equipment to Libya would be assessed.
	While the embargo remains in place, all contact with Libya in this area must fall within the terms of the EU arms embargo and United Kingdom law. This means that no commitments in relation to the actual supply of licensable defence equipment will be made while the embargo is in place.

Diplomatic Missions: Outstanding National Non-domestic Rate Bills

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The majority of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom meet their obligations and pay the national non-domestic rate (NNDR) requested from them. The total amount outstanding from all diplomatic missions is approximately £980,000. However, as at 31 July 2004 missions listed below owed over £10,000 in respect of NNDR. Twelve additional diplomatic missions, which owe £10,000 or more in respect of national non-domestic rates, have made arrangements with the Valuation Office Agency to clear their outstanding debts and have not been included in this list.
	
		
			 COUNTRY AMOUNT 
			 Mozambique £33,718.35 
			 Cameroon £32,640.33 
			 Zimbabwe £31,778.64 
			 Uganda £30,892.13 
			 Egypt £26,674.46 
			 Bangladesh £25,948.51 
			 China £25,241.49 
			 Cote d'Ivoire £20,788.06 
			 Senegal £19,198.79 
			 Saudi Arabia £14,400.70 
			 Yemen Republic £13,582.61 
			 TOTAL £274,864.07

Diplomatic Missions: Serious Offences

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: From a community of around 20,000 in the United Kingdom entitled to immunity, 16 serious offences, allegedly committed by such persons, were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2003. "Serious offences" are defined in accordance with the 1985 White Paper on Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges—that is, as offences that would in certain circumstances, carry a penalty of 12 months or more imprisonment.

Diplomatic Missions: Unpaid Traffic Fines

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: There were 4,565 outstanding parking and other minor traffic violation fines incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisations in the United Kingdom recorded during the year 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003. These totalled £407,950.00. In May this year the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to all affected diplomatic missions and international organisations giving them the opportunity to either pay their outstanding fines or appeal against them if they considered that the fines had been issued incorrectly. As a result payments totalling £49,280.00 were received, leaving a total of 3,941 (£350,170.00) unpaid fines for 2003. The table below details those diplomatic missions and international organisations that have 11 or more undisputed fines unpaid.
	
		
			 Diplomatic Mission/InternationalOrganisation No. of fines Outstanding Amount in £ 
			 Libya 365 34,480.00 
			 Saudi Arabia 264 24,200.00 
			 Nigeria 232 15,850.00 
			 Georgia 172 16,460.00 
			 China 160 14,080.00 
			 Kazakhstan 146 13,670.00 
			 Turkey 116 10,410.00 
			 Egypt 115 10,930.00 
			 Ghana 106 9,650.00 
			 Greece 94 8,230.00 
			 Senegal 93 8,680.00 
			 United Arab 
			   Emirates 92 7,900.00 
			 Angola 87 7,380.00 
			 Kuwait 85 8,270.00 
			 France 78 6,370.00 
			 Afghanistan 76 7,370.00 
			 Russia 75 6,980.00 
			 Algeria 72 6,780.00 
			 Jordan 71 6,660.00 
			 Yemen 60 5,110.00 
			 Malaysia 59 5,720.00 
			 Oman 58 3,830.00 
			 Hungary 56 5,500.00 
			 Kenya 44 4,200.00 
			 Brunei 41 3,920.00 
			 Iran 41 3,280.00 
			 Sudan 40 3,350.00 
			 Rwanda 35 2,650.00 
			 Bahrain 34 3,400.00 
			 Mozambique 34 2,690.00 
			 Germany 32 2,980.00 
			 Brazil 32 2,660.00 
			 Korea (DPR) 31 2,450.00 
			 Uganda 30 2,950.00 
			 Bangladesh 29 2,820.00 
			 Ukraine 29 2,480.00 
			 Tunisia 28 2,590.00 
			 Phillippines 28 2,380.00 
			 Poland 27 2,030.00 
			 Tanzania 26 2,370.00 
			 Bulgaria 26 2,350.00 
			 Romania 25 2,300.00 
			 Latvia 24 2,130.00 
			 Zambia 23 2,140.00 
			 Lithuania 22 2,150.00 
			 Morocco 22 2,090.00 
			 Cyprus 22 1,780.00 
			 Guinea 22 1,430.00 
			 Syria 18 1,570.00 
			 Cuba 18 1,440.00 
			 Belgium 16 1,600.00 
			 Fiji 16 1,600.00 
			 Pakistan 16 1,540.00 
			 Vietnam 16 1,540.00 
			 Spain 16 1,220.00 
			 Azerbaijan 15 1,400.00 
			 Thailand 15 1,360.00 
			 Sierra Leone 15 990.00 
			 United States of 
			   America 14 1,310.00 
			 Cameroon 14 1,300.00 
			 Jamaica 14 1,280.00 
			 Panama 14 1,240.00 
			 Uzbekistan 12 1,020.00 
			 Zimbabwe 12 710.00 
			 TOTAL 3,720 331,200.00 
		
	
	The number of outstanding fines incurred by Diplomatic Missions in the United Kingdom for non-payment of the London congestion charge at the end of its first year of operation in February 2004 was 1,847. The table below shows the 10 diplomatic missions with the highest number of outstanding fines.
	
		
			   
			 1 – Egypt 250 
			 2 – U.A.E. 182 
			 3 – Angola 126 
			 4 – Kazakhstan 84 
			 5 – Sudan 81 
			 6 – Tanzania 72 
			 7 – Sierra Leone 66 
			 8 – Zimbabwe 52 
			 9 – Algeria 50 
			 10 – Malawi 50

Afghanistan: Deployment of RAF Harrier GR7s

Lord Bach: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Geoffrey Hoon) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The United Kingdom has a long-standing commitment to help the people of Afghanistan to rebuild their country as a stable, secure and prosperous nation. That process is now approaching a vital stage. NATO is in the process of expanding the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) by creating more Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). The coalition, meanwhile, continues to deploy PRTs of its own and to engage the remnants of the Taliban and its Al' Qaeda supporters that reject all the Afghan people have achieved since 2001. Both the ISAF and the coalition provide essential support to the Afghan Transitional Authority and to the United Nations' Assistance Mission Afghanistan as they prepare for the Afghan presidential elections which are due on 9 October 2004.
	These are important tasks and both the coalition and the ISAF merit our support. In response to a coalition request for the United Kingdom to provide a close air support capability to coalition forces operating in Southern Afghanistan, I have agreed the deployment of six Royal Air Force Harrier GR7 aircraft to Kandahar, Afghanistan. The aircraft will be provided by No. 3 Squadron, Royal Air Force, and the deployment is planned to be for nine months. The first personnel from 53 Field Squadron (Airfield Support), Royal Engineers, and No. 3 Squadron have already deployed to Kandahar and the force should be operational by the end of this month. The deployment will reach a strength of some 315 personnel in its early stages but will eventually settle at a strength of about 230. The cost of the deployment is estimated to be some £35.5 million.
	This is our first deployment of combat aircraft to Afghanistan in the current campaign. While their principal role will be to support coalition forces, the aircraft will also be available to support the ISAF. NATO has identified three such tasks: close air support as ISAF expands into Western Afghanistan; an airborne Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capability to support all ISAF forces, and; the provision of "air presence patrols" as part of the ISAF's support for the security of the Afghan presidential elections.
	The versatility of the Harriers, which will be equipped with laser-guided bombs, air to surface missiles and the Joint Reconnaissance Pod, makes them an ideal asset to meet all these tasks. Deployment of these aircraft confirms our commitment to the NATO mission in Afghanistan, our support for the ISAF and our determination to help ensure the success of the international community's support for the Afghan electoral process. The Army and Royal Air Force personnel will provide a highly capable and credible force that will contribute to improving the security environment in the region. This is another clear sign of the UK's long term commitment to achieving a stable and secure Afghanistan.

Naval Recruiting and Training Agency: Partnering Arrangement

Lord Bach: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	In 1997 the initial and major phase of the transfer of support service activities to Flagship Training Ltd (Flagship), under partnership arrangements with the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NTRTA), was agreed and subsequently implemented.
	I am pleased to inform the House that I have now agreed in principle to the next phase under this arrangement and the transfer of the provision of services which falls into two categories: Harmonisation, and the integration of the Nuclear Department.
	This phase will enhance the support services already transferred, providing greater efficiencies and effectiveness across the five major training establishments for the Royal Navy. There are potential total savings for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency of approximately £6 million over the remainder of the contract period to 2011.
	The anticipated number of posts to be transferred is 296 (273 civilian and 23 service) under Harmonisation and 24 (20 civilian and four service) in the Nuclear Department. The trades unions have been regularly informed of progress and the formal consultation process has begun. A copy of the consultative documents has been placed in the Library of the House.

MoD Police and Guarding Agency: Key Targets

Lord Bach: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Ministry of Defence Police and Guarding Agency (MDPGA) for the financial year 2004–05. This year the key targets focus on MDP and work is ongoing to establish an effective and joined up performance management system that will fully incorporate the MGS and MDP from next year.
	The targets are as follows:
	Key Target 1: By March 2005, as a means of providing greater public reassurance, ensure that no more than 25 per cent of the duty time of dedicated patrol officers is expended on activities not directly related to patrol duties.
	Key Target 2: By 31 March 2005, as a means of reducing crime and protecting MoD property and interests, achieve a crime solving rate of 50 per cent for the investigation of primary crime.
	Key Target 3: By 31 March 2005, in order to deliver performance as defined in relevant establishment CSAs, ensure that the agency fulfils at least 95 per cent of its funded and agreed customer taskings.
	Key Target 4: By 31 March 2005, in order to maintain appropriate levels of security as defined in relevant MDP CSAs, seek to maintain and improve upon the average baseline Security Contribution Index score achieved in the previous quarter at each establishment contributing to the index system.
	Key Target 5: By 31 March 2005, within the overall recruitment of police staff, and as part of an overall programme to retain personnel levels, to have recruited at least 15 per cent women and 4 per cent from minority ethnic communities.
	Key Target 6: By 31 March 2005, excepting unforeseen operational commitments, and with the intention of providing cost-effective policing and guarding, as well as maintaining an appropriate work life balance for personnel, reduce the amount of overtime worked by each officer to no more than 8 hours worked per week averaged over a 17 week rolling period.
	Key Target 7: By 31 March 2005, in order to maintain a healthy and effective workforce and contribute to the achievement of other key targets, reduce the overall level of sickness lost within the agency (except MGS personnel) by one hour per member of staff per month against the corresponding achievement in the previous year.
	Key Target 8: By 31 March 2005, to have provided a greater clarity as to the extent of fraud within the MoD and thereby to have raised the awareness, by engaging with, and encouraging the MoD community to provide intelligence, with a view to increasing the number of reported fraud cases.

Training Group Defence Agency: Key Targets 2004–05

Lord Bach: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Commander-in-Chief, Royal Air Force Personnel and Training Command has set the chief executive of the Training Group Defence Agency the following targets for financial year 2004–05:
	Key Target 1A: Output—RAF Initial Flying Training
	To recruit and train the required number of Royal Air Force aircrew to the standards required for entry to operational conversion unit training and other specialist flying training courses.
	Fast-Jet Pilots
	42
	Multi-Engine Pilots
	48
	Rotary Wing Pilots
	46
	Fast-Jet Weapons Systems Operators
	28
	Multi-Engine Weapons Systems Operators
	9
	Non-Commissioned Aircrew
	103
	Total
	276
	Key Target 1B:
	Output—RAF Initial Ground Training
	To recruit and train the required number of Royal Air Force personnel to the standards required to undertake ground appointments.
	Officer Basic Specialist Training
	274
	Airman Basic Specialist Training
	2,166
	Total
	2,440
	Key Target 2A: Output—Defence Flying Training
	To train aircrew of the three services to standards for entry to the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy operational conversion unit training, the Defence Helicopter Flying School and other specialist flying training courses, as well as providing training places for international students.
	RAF
	560
	RN
	164
	Army
	305
	Tri-Service
	95
	International
	113
	Total
	1,237
	Key Target 2B: Output—Defence Ground Training
	To train personnel of the three services to the standards required to undertake ground appointments.
	RAF
	17,763
	RN
	3,983
	Army
	6,766
	Total
	28,512
	Quality of Output
	To underpin the military effectiveness of the Royal Air Force by the timely provision of military personnel trained to the standards agreed with the agency's customers.
	Key Target 4:
	Cost Management
	To ensure that the necessary systems are in place to manage the business on an output-cost basis.
	Key Target 5:
	Efficiency
	To reduce the average per capita cost of training by improving first time and overall pass rates.
	
		
			  First Time Pass Rate Overall Pass Rate 
			 Officers—Phase 1 75% 98% 
			 Officers—Phase 2 90% 97% 
			 Airmen—Phase 1 75% 90% 
			 Airmen—Phase 2 
			 38 weeks 80% 90% 
			 Airmen—Phase 2 
			 38 weeks 63% 83%

Defence Procurement Agency: Key Targets 2004–05

Lord Bach: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Six key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Defence Procurement Agency for the financial year 2004–05.
	In a change to previous years, the first three key targets now apply to all projects over £20 million which have passed their main gate approval but not yet achieved in service date (ISD). Key targets 2 and 3 are consistent with the goals set in the department's public service agreement (PSA) for major equipment projects, although for the key targets, all movement in most likely ISD and cost forecasts will be measured, rather than only that which is in excess of the approval. The fourth key target relates to improvements in DPA customer satisfaction. A revised key target 5, comprising a basket of measures, replaces the previous straight measure in order to provide a better indication of DPA efficiency. There is a new sixth key target reflecting the importance which the department attaches to delivery of assets to the front-line. The key targets are:
	Key Target 1: Key requirements compliance
	Predicted achievement of customers' core requirements1 for projects: 97 per cent.
	:TITLE3:Key Target 2: Average in-year in service date slippage
	Average in-year slippage of in service dates not to exceed 0.9 months.
	:TITLE3:Key Target 3: Average in-year cost growth
	Average in-year cost variation not to exceed 0.5 per cent.
	:TITLE3:Key Target 4: Customer survey satisfaction rating
	Customer satisfaction rating of 72 per cent.
	Key Target 5: Achievement of planned efficiency measures
	
		
			   
			 (i)   Measures asset turnover in months by comparing assets delivered to total assets less current liabilities 69.6 
			 (ii)   Measures value of assets delivered as a multiple of operating cost 10.7 
			 (iii)   Measures value of assets added to the balance sheet as a multiple of operating cost. 16.2 
		
	
	Key Target 6: Asset deliveries
	Variance between planned and actual in-year asset deliveries not to exceed 15 per cent.
	1 Around 10 core requirements per projects are agreed between the DPA and MoD headquarters, defining the essential characteristics of the equipment/capability.
	2 Target levels differ from those in the published Corporate Business Plan as they reflect start of year forecast data.

Nuclear Decommissioning

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Government's updated policy on the decommissioning of the UK's nuclear facilities has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The statement is also available on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk.

Richard Neale: NHS Committee of Inquiry

Lord Warner: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.
	The report of the committee of inquiry into how the National Health Service handled allegations about the conduct of Richard Neale (Cm 6315) was published today and copies have been placed in the Library. This is one of the three inquiries announced in July 2001 by my right honourable friend, Alan Milburn, the then Secretary of State for Health. The other two inquiries were to consider how the NHS handled allegations about the conduct of Clifford Ayling, a former GP; and William Kerr and Michael Haslam, former psychiatrists.
	The Government would like to thank the chairman of the inquiry, Her Honour Judge Suzan Matthews QC and the two members of her panel, Christine Funnell and Derek Caldwell, for their thorough review of the circumstances surrounding the appointments to and employment of Richard Neale in the NHS. Their hard work in bringing together the relevant issues and their sympathy and understanding in dealing with them is very much appreciated. The Government would also like to thank the secretariat and legal team who provided such excellent support for the review.
	The Government are very grateful to the former patients of Richard Neale who chose to provide evidence to the inquiry, and to Richard Neale's former colleagues and other witnesses who also gave evidence, all of whom generously gave their time to assist the Inquiry.
	If we are to learn the lessons when things go wrong we must ensure that systems are in place which have the confidence of patients who wish to raise concerns. All patients have the right to expect a high standard of care from clinicians. Richard Neale fell short of these standards and as a result caused the patients in his care unnecessary distress. I should like to extend my sympathies to all those patients involved who suffered in this way.
	The NHS failed many of Richard Neale's former patients and the inquiry has provided the opportunity not only for their voices to be heard, but also to ensure that their experiences will help to strengthen the systems now in place to try to prevent similar incidents in the future.
	The report sets out in detail the history of Richard Neale's appointments in Canada and his subsequent employment in the UK. It charts the system failures that allowed him to be employed as a consultant without a proper understanding of his background; and a mixture of similar failures coupled with complacency that permitted him to continue practising in spite of concerns being raised about him.
	Since these events have come to light, we have taken a number of steps to help avoid similar incidents in the future. In setting out details of the failures over many years, the inquiry found that . . . even before the Inquiry began many of the wider lessons had been learnt and change implemented". The NHS has indeed been subject to considerable changes over the past few years, many having the specific aim of improving the patient experience, especially patient safety. But we are not complacent and we recognise the need for further improvements. The inquiry's conclusions and recommendations, together with those of the Clifford Ayling inquiry also published today, will help us to ensure that the patient experience is properly at the centre of our work in the NHS.
	Many of the recommendations made by this inquiry are concerned with improvements in the way that complaints are handled by the NHS. These include ensuring that patients have both sufficient and correct information about their treatment to inform their decisions as well as strengthening the role of the Patient Advisory Liaison Service (PALS) to support patients who have concerns, and some of this work is already underway. Issues around complaints are also being considered by the Shipman inquiry, which is likely to produce recommendations in its fifth report due later this year. They are also being considered by the William Kerr/Michael Haslam inquiry, whose report is also expected later this year. We will therefore consider these recommendations together with those of the Shipman, Clifford Ayling and William Kerr/Michael Haslam inquiries and give a detailed response in due course.
	In the mean time, the Government will consider very carefully the other recommendations concerning the appointment and employment of consultants and doctors in other grades, as well as the role of the Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals (now known as the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence), and will respond to these as soon as we can.
	We have made clear that patient safety is a priority and the UK has led the way in pushing forward in this area. Tomorrow, I will be talking to fellow EU health ministers about the lessons EU members can learn from one another and make clear that patient safety will be a key issue during the UK presidency of the EU next year.
	This inquiry has provided a valuable insight into a series of errors over a long period of time in the appointment processes and in Richard Neale's employment performance. It has painstakingly identified the causes of those errors and has made helpful recommendations about how best to avoid repeating them. We will review the improvements we have made in the past few years to ensure that they address the concerns raised in the report. The Government are grateful to all those whose contributions to the review will help us to fulfil our commitment to patient safety.

Blood Donation and vCJD

Lord Warner: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.
	Following my Statements to the House on 17 December 2003 and 16 March 2004 concerning variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) and blood, I wish to provide an update on some further developments in this area.
	My Statement on 17 December 2003 informed the House of the first case of possible transmission of vCJD via blood transfusion and the precautionary actions taken. Those actions included measures to protect future blood supplies and contacting recipients of blood from donors who subsequently went on to develop vCJD. A further Written Statement on 22 July 2004 indicated a second case of possible vCJD prion transmission via blood transfusion had been confirmed.
	I also made reference in December to the fact that other patients, including people with haemophilia and other bleeding disorders, would have received plasma products before they were sourced from the United States of America. Although there are now two reports of possible transmission of vCJD via blood, the risk of transmission via plasma products, which will have been derived from large pools of plasma donated from many thousands of people—and therefore heavily diluted—is uncertain. But it cannot be excluded. The CJD Incident Panel (CJDIP) were asked to advise on a case-by-case basis (having adopted a highly precautionary approach) which recipients of plasma products will need to be contacted. This advice has been received and a programme of action has been agreed.
	In June 2004 the Health Protection Agency (HPA), on behalf of the CJD Incident Panel, reported on an assessment of the risk associated with each batch of product and advised my department on: a) which patients needed to be assessed and possibly subsequently contacted, and b) managing the possible risk to public health of those patients.
	In the light of these assessments, the HPA is today initiating a process to notify relevant patients of these developments. The HPA are sending information to clinicians to enable them to trace particular plasma products. The clinicians will then notify any patients identified as 'at risk' as a precaution. Any patients affected should expect to be contacted by clinicians later this month.
	Aside from patients with haemophilia or other bleeding disorders, the other main group of patients who may have received significant amounts of affected blood products are patients with primary immuno-deficiency (PID).
	Throughout this exercise we have been concerned to ensure that the results of the risk assessment are communicated to patients by the clinicians responsible for their day to day care, so that appropriate supporting information can be provided.
	Further details about the risk assessment exercise will not be disclosed until after patients are informed of the outcome. I will make a further Statement at a later date, if necessary.